Re: [mif] draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04 published

[Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]>]

Le 2012-03-27 à 14:38, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :

> Le 27/03/2012 14:05, Marc Blanchet a écrit :
>> Le 2012-03-27 à 13:47, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
>>> 
>>> When setting up routes one would like to make sure they're right
>>> and they lead somewhere at least most of the time. At the smart end
>>> node and dumb network, there should always exist a fallback and
>>> that fallback is typically the default route ("when everything else
>>> fails").
>>> 
>>> In this sense, if the end node sets up its routes with DHCP, it
>>> would like to be sure they're right most of the time, otherwise use
>>> the default route.
>>> 
>>> But when the default route _and_ the other more specific routes
>>> are provided by DHCP, and if failing, then there is a risk of
>>> misconfiguration.
>> 
>> yes and no. ipv6 stack is pretty good in actively tracking if routers
>> are up.
>> 
>> in fact, having the default route or not does not change the basic
>> issue, which is, to me, a trust issue.
>> 
>> say for example that you have two different types as you suggest: one
>> for more specific routes and one for default route. well, if the
>> dhcpv6 server sends you a specific route such as 2000::/3, it is
>> almost a default route, and moreover, it will be preferred over the
>> (good,appropriate) default routes.
> 
> We could specify the specific routes part to MUST NOT send 2000::/3 as
> route.  Would this solve that?

no. what about 2000::/4, 2000::/5 … 

Marc.